The principle of natural justice requires that a person suspected of malpractice must be given a full and fair opportunity to defend himself and offer explanations.

Narayana Pai, J.—The Petitioner, who appeared for the B. Sc. Degree Examination of the Mysore University in April 1960, prays for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the order of the University notified under No. EX.CEP--148/60-61 D/- 12-8-1900 debarring him from appearing for the B. Sc. Degree Examination for a period of two years commencing from April 1960 Examination and for another writ o£ mandamus directing the respondent-University to announce the result of the Examination held in 1960 so far as the petitioner is concerned.

2. The results of the Examination were in fact published by the University disclosing that the petitioner had passed in all the three Parts of the Examination in the Third Class with a note appended at the bottom reading that the results of certain candidates will be announced later, Among those candidates is the petitioner whose Register Number at the Examination is 1353. The enquiries made by the petitioner's father in respect of this note did not elicit any definite information from the University, until by a letter dated the 1st of April 1960 the petitioner was called upon to meet the Controller of Examinations on the 12th of July 1960 in the Chambers of the Director of Collegiate Education at the Central College, Bangalore. The petitioner states that when he did call at the place and time mentioned, he was informed that the Controller of Examinations was not then available and was asked to call again the following day at 3 p.m.

3. What happened when the petitioner called again on the 13th of July 1960 at 3 p.m. is briefly stated in paragraph 8 of his affidavit. When he entered the Chambers, in addition to the Controller of Examinations, there were present the Director of Collegiate Education and the Professor of Chemistry. The petitioner was asked about the number of additional sheets he had taken for the purpose of answering the Second Paper in Chemistry al the Examination.

A written statement to that effect was also taken from him. He was then asked some questions on Chemistry Second Paper and was also asked whether he could write down the answers there. Though the petitioner stated that lie was willing to do so, he was not asked to write out the answers, but one of the interrogators remarked "too clever".

When he was asked how it was possible for him to write out answers which agreed closely with the text in one of the Text-Books of Chemistry, the petitioner Is stated to have replied that he had studied the subject day and night and was therefore in a position to write in the manner he had done at the. Examination. The petitioner was later asked whether he was acquainted with any person in Mysore or in University. Finally, he was admonished to tell the truth with an assurance that if he did so, he would be given a lesser punishment.

4. With reference to these allegations, the answer made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University by the Controller of Examinations, amounts to this, The University authorities had reason to suspect that the petitioner and the examiner who valued his paper were guilty of malpractice at the Examination and therefore a Committee consisting of the Principal of the Central College, Head of the Department of Chemistry, the Controller of Examinations and the Registrar of the University, was constituted to enquire into the matter. That Committee met on 13-7-1960 and took the explanations of the petitioner and the said lecturer. The affidavit proceeds to state;

"Several questions were put to the petitioner during the course of the enquiry. As I am producing before the Hon'ble Court the report of the said Committee, I submit it is unnecessary for me to set out what transpired before the Committee on that day. However, it is necessary to add that some of the allegations made by the petitioner in this para are not correct. His allegation that he was asked by the Committee to tell the truth and that the Committee told him that if he told